The Forum For The Leeds United Supporters Trust


    Bates Again

    Share

    bartmart
    Reserve Team
    Reserve Team

    Posts : 54
    Join date : 2009-02-19
    Age : 58
    Location : Yorkshire

    Bates Again

    Post by bartmart on Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:31 pm

    Usual Bates article from YP below : It is not his fault it is the councils, never mentions the fact that we waited until the last minute to approach the council, which must have made them suspicious, and I would imagine his constant criticisms of the council are going to start annoying another powerful organisation that we could with being on our side.

    Outlines in detail all our outgoings but mentions nothing about any incoming monies, so I will have a go : -

    Since Administration we have I believe received compensation for Poyet, Wise, the two players that went to Chelsea, the two young lads that went to Man City, Luke Garbut to Everton, transfer money from Delph and Milner, three ‘extra’ capacity crowds against Carlisle, Milwall and Liverpool, have had a Wembley play off final, have exceeded our break even target of 22,000 for the last three years, have had 30, 000 ‘members’ with around 20,000 paying between 30 and 40 pounds for the privilege, and I think around 10 thousand LUTV subscribers paying 40 pounds per year.

    I have no idea how much all this adds up to and I doubt very much if Bates will be as forthcoming in either his programme notes or any delayed published accounts that he is forced to issue, but I suspect it is quite near to the figure that the offshore trusts wrote off when Bates obtained the club after administration i.e. 18 million pounds.

    If we have got investors in the club who saved the club from liquidation, then I don’t mind these people staying anonymous or receiving a return on their money, what I do object to is all the secrecy around how much these individuals put into the club and how much they are getting in return, and the pretence that investors and organisations write off eighteen million pound just because they would prefer to have cuddly Ken in charge.

    A quote below made at the time was probably made with a careful hand that knew of Bates liking for litigation.

    The key factor is the Astor waiver of the debt for one of the bidders, which at the least is unusual. "Coming across insolvencies as often as we do, it's unusual for an unconnected party to make that offer to a bidder."


    KEN BATES has revealed the high financial costs involved in running Leeds United prevented the club from independently financing the buy-back of Thorp Arch earlier this month.
    The League One outfit lost their exclusive right to acquire the training ground near Wetherby for £5.8m after a plan by Leeds City Council to buy the site fell through at the last minute.

    Bates criticised the local authority, who under the terms
    of the deal would have rented Thorp Arch back to United, for trying to attach 13 conditions to the deal just hours before the October 15 deadline was due to elapse.

    As a result, the Elland Road chairman pulled the plug because, without guarantees from the Council, United could have potentially been liable for the entire cost.

    The failure to conclude a deal for the flagship site that was sold in 2004 to ease crippling debts left fans openly questioning why Leeds had been unable to finance a deal themselves after selling Fabian Delph for a reported £6m and having made a profit of £4.5m in the last financial year.

    In response, Bates has revealed to the Yorkshire Post that United's high running costs plus the Delph transfer fee being paid in instalments meant the club simply did not have the necessary funds.

    Among the considerable out-goings is the yearly rental bill for Thorp Arch and Elland Road that stands at around £1.9m. Council Tax and utility bills add another £600,000, while a wage bill of a little over £6m is not only the biggest in League One but also comparable to "an awful lot of Championship clubs".

    Bates also draws attention to pay-outs to former manager Gary McAllister and assistant Steve Staunton following their dismissal last December plus the compensation that had to be paid to Blackpool for Simon Grayson.

    The Leeds chairman said: "This is an expensive football club to run and we didn't have the money (to conclude the Thorp Arch deal without the help of the Council).

    "The wage bill is on a par with an awful lot of Championship clubs. We have had to pay money to McAllister and Staunton, and for bringing in Simon Grayson.

    "We have also spent £500,000 on getting planning permission to redevelop the East Stand. When that is completed, it is something the club will benefit from for years to come.

    "Buying Thorp Arch with our own money wasn't an option because we didn't have the money to do it. A lot of clubs are in trouble at the moment but we are run sensibly.

    "Our objective at the moment is to get promoted from League One and we are well on the way to doing that."

    On the fee received for Delph, chief executive Shaun Harvey added: "You don't receive 100 per cent of the fee up front.

    "People see a headline figure of £6m but that is not what we actually receive straight away. Bradford (who sold Delph to Leeds at the age of 11) got their share and still have some to come."

    United, whose break-even attendance figure for this season is 22,000, have also had to budget for future liabilities such as the appearance-related clause in the deal to sign Tresor Kandol that means Barnet will soon be due an additional sum.

    Should United be promoted, they will also have to make bonus payments as part of several loan deals.

    Bates insists the accumulation of these costs is why Leeds were unable to raise the £5.8m required to buy back Thorp Arch from Manchester businessman Jacob Adler.

    United will pay Adler's company, Barnaway Ltd, £486,000 to rent the facility, a sum that will rise annually by three per cent for the remaining 20 years of the lease.

    On the Council's failure to conclude a deal for Thorp Arch, Bates insists that every one of the 13 conditions would have been met had they been raised earlier.

    He said: "The conditions raised by the Council at the last minute were all capable of being resolved if it had given us enough time to do so but we couldn't commit to a deal without the guarantee that the council would come up with the money 28 days later."

    It is not clear if one of the conditions demanded by the Council concerned who ultimately controls and owns the club, a matter about which the Football League are believed to be seeking clarification.

    A similar investigation into Notts County saw the League recently accept the Meadow Lane club's ownership structure.

    Bates said: "We don't think we will have a problem with the Football League.

    "We are a member club with a professional management team which is trading profitably. Seventy one other clubs are looking at us and wishing they were in our position."
    avatar
    soupdragon
    Reserve Team
    Reserve Team

    Posts : 64
    Join date : 2009-10-23
    Age : 58
    Location : Torquay

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by soupdragon on Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:06 pm

    bartmart wrote:Usual Bates article from YP below : It is not his fault it is the councils, never mentions the fact that we waited until the last minute to approach the council, which must have made them suspicious, and I would imagine his constant criticisms of the council are going to start annoying another powerful organisation that we could with being on our side.

    Outlines in detail all our outgoings but mentions nothing about any incoming monies, so I will have a go : -

    Since Administration we have I believe received compensation for Poyet, Wise, the two players that went to Chelsea, the two young lads that went to Man City, Luke Garbut to Everton, transfer money from Delph and Milner, three ‘extra’ capacity crowds against Carlisle, Milwall and Liverpool, have had a Wembley play off final, have exceeded our break even target of 22,000 for the last three years, have had 30, 000 ‘members’ with around 20,000 paying between 30 and 40 pounds for the privilege, and I think around 10 thousand LUTV subscribers paying 40 pounds per year.

    I have no idea how much all this adds up to and I doubt very much if Bates will be as forthcoming in either his programme notes or any delayed published accounts that he is forced to issue, but I suspect it is quite near to the figure that the offshore trusts wrote off when Bates obtained the club after administration i.e. 18 million pounds.

    If we have got investors in the club who saved the club from liquidation, then I don’t mind these people staying anonymous or receiving a return on their money, what I do object to is all the secrecy around how much these individuals put into the club and how much they are getting in return, and the pretence that investors and organisations write off eighteen million pound just because they would prefer to have cuddly Ken in charge.

    A quote below made at the time was probably made with a careful hand that knew of Bates liking for litigation.

    The key factor is the Astor waiver of the debt for one of the bidders, which at the least is unusual. "Coming across insolvencies as often as we do, it's unusual for an unconnected party to make that offer to a bidder."


    KEN BATES has revealed the high financial costs involved in running Leeds United prevented the club from independently financing the buy-back of Thorp Arch earlier this month.
    The League One outfit lost their exclusive right to acquire the training ground near Wetherby for £5.8m after a plan by Leeds City Council to buy the site fell through at the last minute.

    Bates criticised the local authority, who under the terms
    of the deal would have rented Thorp Arch back to United, for trying to attach 13 conditions to the deal just hours before the October 15 deadline was due to elapse.

    As a result, the Elland Road chairman pulled the plug because, without guarantees from the Council, United could have potentially been liable for the entire cost.

    The failure to conclude a deal for the flagship site that was sold in 2004 to ease crippling debts left fans openly questioning why Leeds had been unable to finance a deal themselves after selling Fabian Delph for a reported £6m and having made a profit of £4.5m in the last financial year.

    In response, Bates has revealed to the Yorkshire Post that United's high running costs plus the Delph transfer fee being paid in instalments meant the club simply did not have the necessary funds.

    Among the considerable out-goings is the yearly rental bill for Thorp Arch and Elland Road that stands at around £1.9m. Council Tax and utility bills add another £600,000, while a wage bill of a little over £6m is not only the biggest in League One but also comparable to "an awful lot of Championship clubs".

    Bates also draws attention to pay-outs to former manager Gary McAllister and assistant Steve Staunton following their dismissal last December plus the compensation that had to be paid to Blackpool for Simon Grayson.

    The Leeds chairman said: "This is an expensive football club to run and we didn't have the money (to conclude the Thorp Arch deal without the help of the Council).

    "The wage bill is on a par with an awful lot of Championship clubs. We have had to pay money to McAllister and Staunton, and for bringing in Simon Grayson.

    "We have also spent £500,000 on getting planning permission to redevelop the East Stand. When that is completed, it is something the club will benefit from for years to come.

    "Buying Thorp Arch with our own money wasn't an option because we didn't have the money to do it. A lot of clubs are in trouble at the moment but we are run sensibly.

    "Our objective at the moment is to get promoted from League One and we are well on the way to doing that."

    On the fee received for Delph, chief executive Shaun Harvey added: "You don't receive 100 per cent of the fee up front.

    "People see a headline figure of £6m but that is not what we actually receive straight away. Bradford (who sold Delph to Leeds at the age of 11) got their share and still have some to come."

    United, whose break-even attendance figure for this season is 22,000, have also had to budget for future liabilities such as the appearance-related clause in the deal to sign Tresor Kandol that means Barnet will soon be due an additional sum.

    Should United be promoted, they will also have to make bonus payments as part of several loan deals.

    Bates insists the accumulation of these costs is why Leeds were unable to raise the £5.8m required to buy back Thorp Arch from Manchester businessman Jacob Adler.

    United will pay Adler's company, Barnaway Ltd, £486,000 to rent the facility, a sum that will rise annually by three per cent for the remaining 20 years of the lease.

    On the Council's failure to conclude a deal for Thorp Arch, Bates insists that every one of the 13 conditions would have been met had they been raised earlier.

    He said: "The conditions raised by the Council at the last minute were all capable of being resolved if it had given us enough time to do so but we couldn't commit to a deal without the guarantee that the council would come up with the money 28 days later."

    It is not clear if one of the conditions demanded by the Council concerned who ultimately controls and owns the club, a matter about which the Football League are believed to be seeking clarification.

    A similar investigation into Notts County saw the League recently accept the Meadow Lane club's ownership structure.

    Bates said: "We don't think we will have a problem with the Football League.

    "We are a member club with a professional management team which is trading profitably. Seventy one other clubs are looking at us and wishing they were in our position."

    I don't care much for some of Bates methods either bartmart, but i do understand about cashflow and I'm pretty sure we don't have 6m spare for the purchase of Thorp Arch even without the exact figures. Right now I'll settle for sound finances and the best team in league one.
    We may not have wanted KB as chairman and he does have an annoying habit of picking fights etc but look around, we are in good shape, there are so many clubs in bother.
    When scum played the scousers recently the combined debt was £1 billion.

    bartmart
    Reserve Team
    Reserve Team

    Posts : 54
    Join date : 2009-02-19
    Age : 58
    Location : Yorkshire

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by bartmart on Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:26 pm

    Thanks for the reply I must admit as a Metallurgist I know next to nothing about cash flow, but I am pretty certain that people or companies do not 'write off' amounts such as eighteen million pounds.

    I suspect that having pretended that they do, we will now have to find some way of hiding the fact that we are paying them back, which is why I think we seem to have no money on hand to call on, but I may be wrong, I have no expertise in this area, just a healthy dose of Yorkshire common sense and cynicism about eighteen million pound debts that don't need repaying.
    avatar
    LUFC DAVE
    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 106
    Join date : 2009-01-27
    Age : 36
    Location : Llandudno

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by LUFC DAVE on Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:36 pm

    bartmart wrote:Thanks for the reply I must admit as a Metallurgist I know next to nothing about cash flow, but I am pretty certain that people or companies do not 'write off' amounts such as eighteen million pounds.

    I suspect that having pretended that they do, we will now have to find some way of hiding the fact that we are paying them back, which is why I think we seem to have no money on hand to call on, but I may be wrong, I have no expertise in this area, just a healthy dose of Yorkshire common sense and cynicism about eighteen million pound debts that don't need repaying.

    ive always thought that, but at present we cant prove any of it can we


    _________________
    avatar
    soupdragon
    Reserve Team
    Reserve Team

    Posts : 64
    Join date : 2009-10-23
    Age : 58
    Location : Torquay

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by soupdragon on Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:25 pm

    LUFC DAVE wrote:
    bartmart wrote:Thanks for the reply I must admit as a Metallurgist I know next to nothing about cash flow, but I am pretty certain that people or companies do not 'write off' amounts such as eighteen million pounds.

    I suspect that having pretended that they do, we will now have to find some way of hiding the fact that we are paying them back, which is why I think we seem to have no money on hand to call on, but I may be wrong, I have no expertise in this area, just a healthy dose of Yorkshire common sense and cynicism about eighteen million pound debts that don't need repaying.

    ive always thought that, but at present we cant prove any of it can we

    The truth will out...sooner or later...probably later
    avatar
    LUSCBRADFORD
    Trust Admin

    Posts : 129
    Join date : 2009-04-24

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by LUSCBRADFORD on Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:45 pm

    soupdragon wrote:
    LUFC DAVE wrote:
    bartmart wrote:Thanks for the reply I must admit as a Metallurgist I know next to nothing about cash flow, but I am pretty certain that people or companies do not 'write off' amounts such as eighteen million pounds.

    I suspect that having pretended that they do, we will now have to find some way of hiding the fact that we are paying them back, which is why I think we seem to have no money on hand to call on, but I may be wrong, I have no expertise in this area, just a healthy dose of Yorkshire common sense and cynicism about eighteen million pound debts that don't need repaying.

    ive always thought that, but at present we cant prove any of it can we

    The truth will out...sooner or later...probably later
    Lets hope it never happens,unfortunately while we have Kenneth has Chairman we will always have a smell around what is actually happening.

    Dick Dastardly
    Youth
    Youth

    Posts : 7
    Join date : 2009-10-23

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by Dick Dastardly on Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:52 am

    I'm still curious to hear Bates give an explanation why he/Harvey have previously gone on record to say we were purchasing Thorp Arch and we had the money and did not need to sell any players. (on that basis the Delph sale is irrelevent).

    The statements now state we dont have the money. What has changed? He has had 4 years to prioritise this (his words). What has happened to the money he said he had a few months back? Why hasn't anybody in the media asked the question.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Bates Again

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:50 am